Examples of Skeptics Cold Reading?

[Nigel]

voidx,

One...more...time.....

I was referring to this comment by Upchurch (a mod):

That was the context of my comment. He says personal attacks are not against forum rules outside CT (and, of course, he's right). I think they should be.

My post was in response to this comment/philosophy, period. Personally, I would like to have a "no personal attacks" rule here--let the chips fall where they may, that would still be my preference.

But it won't happen. (And Hal's answer to me on the "Community" thread makes it pretty clear that the new Official forum won't be changing this either...not that I'm surprised. As I say, I believe it to be a minority view).

Clancie, I was referring to the very same comment you were. In your post, you seemed to think Claus's comment was a personal attack. I apologize if I thought wrongly, but that's what I read from the context of your post. By quoting Upchurch's comment about personal attacks in your post, how could I think otherwise? I merely said I didn't see the police comment as a personal attack, and that it had more than one meaning. Perhaps Ian occasionally needs help home from the pub, and his local constabulary offers assistance. I don't know, because I've not been to Ian's town, or pub, or anywhere close to his location.

Since you'd like to have a no personal attacks here, and frankly, I've said several times I'm up to my ears in frustration over the sniping I've seen, define "personal attacks". Certainly Ian's comments qualify, such as "What's in your thick skull? Sawdust?" or whatever comment he used. "You must be thick as f*ck" would qualify. But saying the police helps him find his way home? How is that a personal attack? And where is the line drawn? I'm all for civility, but let's define our terms. Get that straight, and you've made a lot of progress toward a better community.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Exactly. I find it interesting that Clancie finds it necessary to comment on my post (and yes, it could be seen as a personal attack), while keeping totally silent whenever Ian has been rude. Which, as we know, happened with almost every post he made.

Hypocrisy comes to mind.

I find it interesting that Claus calls others obsessive when he has more posts to or about at least one of those that he calls obsessive.

Hypocrisy comes to mind, my mind at least.

 

[Clancie]

Posted by Nigel

Clancie, I was referring to the very same comment you were. In your post, you seemed to think Claus's comment was a personal attack. I apologize if I thought wrongly, but that's what I read from the context of your post.

Nigel,

Again, no, I didn't read Claus's comment to Ian and so, no, I was not commenting on anything he'd said. My comment was general, about the rules here in general, and was directed to Upchurch, in response to his mod post.

His post offered an opportunity to state my opinion of a rule that imo should be added and adhered to. Given the opportunity to say it...I did.

And, in answer to your question, if -my- idea of personal attack was the rule here, yes, Ian's post would have qualified, as well as many other posts by many "skeptics". But...I'm not. So I was just sharing a general point of view with Upchurch, since opportunity presented itself. That was all.

 

[Clancie]

Posted by Marian

Even if its nothing more than curiosity, such readings always interest me, especially when I've heard a personal account. (In other words, I've had people express that they've seen 'real' psychics and have accounted what they were told and how amazing it was, and I'd just love to be able to hear the recording or see a transcript of the actual reading for comparison).

Yes, of course. That's always interesting. However, imo, there is always enough "junk" and "gray areas" that if someone is of a mind to say, "Well, those other things were just...lucky guesses and making it fit..."....no one else's transcript is really going to change your mind, one way or the other. Imo, skeptics will hear the misses, just as much as they say that believers hear the hits.

Just another question (smart idea btw on having your own recording regardless), has your recording ever differed from one provided to you (in other words have they ever tampered with the recording given to you).

No, never. But what I found most surprising was that they let me record them at all. I mean, even people who are obviously bad have been perfectly willing to be recorded. Either they're cocky and think people won't know the difference or, imo more likely after talking with some of them, they really believe they have a gift and aren't at all afraid of being taped. (And I don't think NOT allowing taping means they're necessarily fraudulent, either. I'm just surprised taping is as common as it is, considering all the variables).

...with an hour long personalized reading, there's probably no way to present it without presenting all the personal (and private) details of one's life.

True.

Plus I've seen some claims that have been made (specifically in John Edward's transcripts) which would be almost impossible to refute as it's a 'when did you stop beating your wife' question.

An example would be additional siblings.

I agree. And I've seen this stretched to include "There must have been a miscarriage then"--but, then, not evidential, one way or the other.

Too much weasel room on things that really cannot be absolutely demonstrated, and so are 'safe' claims.

That's another good thing of having a tape. If that's what you get in a reading--safe claims and generalities--imo, its not evidential.

I noticed in a John Edward transcript I saw that he accused someone of lying about a connection out of 'embarassment'. So again, without knowing absolutely all the details of someone's life, it's difficult to ascertain some of those details.

Yes. Actually, I've seen him live and pretty much decided ahead of time that, in the unlikely scenario that I was read, I would not sign a release to have my (edited) reading televised. I usually post in support of JE here, but, frankly, not all the things he says to people are my cup of tea--the one you mention above is one of them that isn't.

 

[Tricky]

Yes, and that's the reason why the claimed desire for "civility" is just lip service and will never be the reality here.

When personal attacks are allowed and even encouraged by some people, you will -never- have a board with civility.

If the new board really decides to enforce civility--i.e. no personal insults, just discussion of the topic-- imo, it will be all for the better.

The best and only thing you can do if you want to keep stay around, Clancie, is to keep your own posts civil, which you do as a general rule.

I freely admit that I have been incivil towards Ian, but a great deal less so than he has been. If Ian likes to insult me, then I will insult him back. Those who play nice are in no danger of being insulted by me, unless, of course, they wish a friendly flame war.

I notice the same relationship between you and Claus. The two of you are quite hostile towards each other, but don't have the same level of hostility towards all who disagree with you. To me, this seems the most judicious course.

But like others, I wonder why you never complain about the person here who is unquestionably the least civil poster? However, like others, I expect I will not receive an answer to this question, regardless of how civilly asked.
*****
edited to say:

Of course I could be wrong. I stand corrected.

And, in answer to your question, if -my- idea of personal attack was the rule here, yes, Ian's post would have qualified...

 

[Clancie]

Posted by Tricky

I notice the same relationship between you and Claus. The two of you are quite hostile towards each other, but don't have the same level of hostility towards all who disagree with you. To me, this seems the most judicious course.

This seems to be a widespread misconception here. It is a mistake. We do not have a "relationship" and are not "quite hostile" toward "each other". He posts to me--a lot. (See T'ai Chi's study of it, if you're interested, over in Forum Management). Regardless, I try my best to interact with others instead. Time has shown me that it is better to just not reply.

People often say that its annoying how we are always "back and forth" equally with each other.. It's just too bad they don't look at the "evidence" in the threads themselves. Look even in this thread, or this forum for the week...really look at what you think is an "exchange" between us on these topics. I think, if you look at the totality of posts "to" each other, you'll be extremely surprised to discover the reality that it is really extremely one-sided, not really an "exchange" at all.

 

[Clancie]

Posted by Tricky

The best and only thing you can do if you want to keep stay around, Clancie, is to keep your own posts civil,

And...does that advice go for everyone, iyo, Tricky? I can easily think of a half dozen so-called "skeptics" who are not very civil, while, on the other hand, I moderate my "manners" pretty tightly, as a rule. Would you have given this same advice, just like this, to all of these "skeptics" as well? Or just to someone with my minority viewpoint on the paranormal?

 

[Nigel]

Nigel,

Again, no, I didn't read Claus's comment to Ian and so, no, I was not commenting on anything he'd said. My comment was general, about the rules here in general, and was directed to Upchurch, in response to his mod post.

His post offered an opportunity to state my opinion of a rule that imo should be added and adhered to. Given the opportunity to say it...I did.

And, in answer to your question, if -my- idea of personal attack was the rule here, yes, Ian's post would have qualified, as well as many other posts by many "skeptics". But...I'm not. So I was just sharing a general point of view with Upchurch, since opportunity presented itself. That was all.

Gotcha Clancie. Thanks for clearing it up.

 

[Tricky]

This seems to be a widespread misconception here. It is a mistake. We do not have a "relationship" and are not "quite hostile" toward "each other". He posts to me--a lot. (See T'ai Chi's study of it, if you're interested, over in Forum Management). Regardless, I try my best to interact with others instead. Time has shown me that it is better to just not reply.

I would have to say that this is a correct statement. I retract my earlier statement about mutual hostility.

 

[Tricky]

And...does that advice go for everyone, iyo, Tricky? I can easily think of a half dozen so-called "skeptics" who are not very civil, while, on the other hand, I moderate my "manners" pretty tightly, as a rule. Would you have given this same advice, just like this, to all of these "skeptics" as well? Or just to someone with my minority viewpoint on the paranormal?

I would give it to everyone. I have commented before that I do not care for the style of several of our posters, including Claus and Thaiboxerken, and even Randi himself. Neither do I see it as my job to "fix" them. I accept their styles, as I do Ian's style (I argued against his suspension). But if people are jerks, well, hey, I can play that game too.

This place is just bubbling over with humanity, and I don't want to restrict that. I agree with limited censorship (to stay out of legal problems and stay in schools), but I prefer people to be themselves here. It makes for a more honest exchange.

 

[Clancie]

Posted by Tricky

I would have to say that this is a correct statement. I retract my earlier statement about mutual hostility.

Thank you. I appreciate it.

I accept their styles, as I do Ian's style (I argued against his suspension). But if people are jerks, well, hey, I can play that game too.

I understand. I just think boards with more civility tend to have less noise over all.

This place is just bubbling over with humanity, and I don't want to restrict that. I agree with limited censorship (to stay out of legal problems and stay in schools), but I prefer people to be themselves here. It makes for a more honest exchange.

I kind of agree with you, generally speaking. But, after seeing so many promising debates derailed by anomosity of various kinds, I've just come around to feeling that eliminating personal attacks would overall lead to better conversations (not sure about how I'd draw the line, though, with wry or droll remarks, etc. to be perfectly honest). Clever people (as there are here) will find ways to express themselves even more cleverly, imo, if the "insult" channel is denied them.

But...it's not going to happen, new board or old. So...my post to Upchurch was really of the (usual) "tilting at windmills" variety, nothing more.

 

[Tricky]

I understand. I just think boards with more civility tend to have less noise over all.

Perhaps so, but boards with more civility also tend to be a whole bunch of people with the same opinions (though not always). I've expressed my fondness for trolls before, because they make this a very interesting, if sometimes uncivil board. Everybody here knows that it is the uncivil threads that get the most action. I admit to a guilty pleasure in that.

I kind of agree with you, generally speaking. But, after seeing so many promising debates derailed by anomosity of various kinds, I've just come around to feeling that eliminating personal attacks would overall lead to better conversations (not sure about how I'd draw the line, though, with wry or droll remarks, etc. to be perfectly honest). Clever people (as there are here) will find ways to express themselves even more cleverly, imo, if the "insult" channel is denied them.

There are many ways to insult. Clever people will do so without resorting to crudeness, but they are insults nevertheless. That is, in fact, one reason why I love flaming. It lets you put your language skills to the test. I prefer to do it with friends, but will take on a troll if the occasion arises. I realize this is not for everyone, but having cut my teeth on Ambrose Bierce and Mark Twain, I delight in sarcasm well done.

But...it's not going to happen, new board or old. So...my post to Upchurch was really of the (usual) "tilting at windmills" variety, nothing more.

Yup. Good analogy, because the truth is that windmills are not dangerous or bad. They might be scary, but really, they are beneficial. I feel the same way about trolls.

 

[Mercutio]

There are many ways to insult. Clever people will do so without resorting to crudeness, but they are insults nevertheless. That is, in fact, one reason why I love flaming. It lets you put your language skills to the test. I prefer to do it with friends, but will take on a troll if the occasion arises. I realize this is not for everyone, but having cut my teeth on Ambrose Bierce and Mark Twain, I delight in sarcasm well done.

Cool...do you ever plan to do it on this forum?



[/derail]

 

[T'ai Chi]

And...does that advice go for everyone, iyo, Tricky? I can easily think of a half dozen so-called "skeptics" who are not very civil, while, on the other hand, I moderate my "manners" pretty tightly, as a rule. Would you have given this same advice, just like this, to all of these "skeptics" as well? Or just to someone with my minority viewpoint on the paranormal?

I think us woo woo kaffe klatch troll tse tse obsessive cyberstalking balloon flies are wrong when we say that some skeptics are hypocritical and don't have manners...


I think having a minority viewpoint biases, either consciously or unconsciously (most likely the case) how the majority interacts with you. ie: a skeptic can call me an a$$hole, and gets away with it by using `-marks in it (it got edited finally, only well after I brought it to moderator attention- by then it was already several pages back in the thread), and won't provide evidence or retract his claim (see below) but tells others to, etc etc etc.

 

[Tricky]

Cool...do you ever plan to do it on this forum?

I'm afraid not, my little half-scene semi-swordsman. Call me in the Flame Wars, and I'll give you a nasty taunting you'll never forget.

This forum is serious.

 

[voidx]

voidx,

One...more...time.....

I was referring to this comment by Upchurch (a mod):

I'm well aware.

That was the context of my comment. He says personal attacks are not against forum rules outside CT (and, of course, he's right). I think they should be.

My post was in response to this comment/philosophy, period. Personally, I would like to have a "no personal attacks" rule here--let the chips fall where they may, that would still be my preference.

All fine and good. Let me pull a trick out of your bag then. Would you have made this same comment if the post had been by a "believer"? Say, if Ian had been reported?

But it won't happen. (And Hal's answer to me on the "Community" thread makes it pretty clear that the new Official forum won't be changing this either...not that I'm surprised. As I say, I believe it to be a minority view). [/B]

Always in the minority huh. Your consistent at least, I'll give you that .

This is the part of your post I mostly had a problem with:

When personal attacks are allowed and even encouraged by some people, you will -never- have a board with civility.

In my opinion, and with your rather well known stance that there is a double standard on this forum, I took this to sort of be a jab at skeptics using personal attacks, while decrying others that do the same. Especially since it just happened to be a comment of Larsens. Hence my reply and Ian as an example. Perhaps I was wrong. Perhaps not. *shrugs*

 

[TheBoyPaj]

I've used paranormal boards with a "no personal attacks" rule. The trouble is that it's so hard to say what counts as personal. Is "Sceptics are so close-minded" a personal attack? What about "you just don't understand the evidence"?

In the end, people's hackles can be raised by anything which seems to doubt their own ability to think, and it ends up becoming a game of who insulted who first. I don't envy the mods job if that happens.

 

[glee]

{sighs}

Derren doesn't have to beat a Grandmaster with just a bishop ahead! You've just said the Grandmaster resigned! In the mirror game Derren is losing. So he can resign at that point like Grandmaster Emms does in the original game. Or he can play for a few moves and thus have some influence over the number of pieces left on the board. Of course he will definitely lose, but that doesn't matter since he would lose that game anyway.

Oh dear.
You don't seem to understand.
You claimed that Derren could finish a game early by resigning (or agreeing a draw) to arrange that the correct number of pieces were left on the board.
You also gave an example of Derren being able to win when a massive amount of material ahead.
The example above is to show that games in the event finished when one player was only a bishop ahead. If Derren needed to resign (to get the right number of pieces left), he would have had to beat a Grandmaster with only a bishop start - quite ridiculous.
Also this example shows that international players will not play on when a ridiculous amount of material behind, so your example fails for that reason.

The draw option is only of very limited use. If the situation has any complexity whatsoever then obviously this option would not be available to him. As I keep reiterating, Derren can have a degree of *influence* over the number of pieces remaining in some of the games. And certainly TheBoyPaj hypothesis by itself was never a runner, but had to be supplemented by the additional supposition that the players get asked in a particular given order how many pieces are left on their boards, at the end of the game. Whether this actually took place or not, I have no idea since I wasn't watching the programme at that stage.

You keep reiterating, but don't explain how your idea would ever work.
I have asked you to explain how Derren could ever agree a draw, given the rules of chess. Please reply, rather than waffle 'The draw option is only of very limited use.' it is of no use if you can't use it!
And now you offer up an extra complication, because you weren't watching.
The players were indeed asked in order (the boards were numbered).
Does this mean your hypothesis collapses?
Do you see how useful it is to have a reliable source?

Glee, you are a concrete block. You are too thick to understand my arguments. We have been through this before. Your basic philosophical reasoning ability is zero.

Gosh, Ian.
Why this level of rudeness?
Could it be that you have no sensible points to make, so just throw out insults?
I don't get peeved when you refuse to admit that your memory played tricks on you, and that your recall was faulty.

Your 2 contentions, namely:

• TheBoyPaj and I are advocating that Derren is using paranormal powers to achieve what he did.
• That he actually employed the speculative hypothesis we suggested.
  [/list=a]
  
  Are both utterly ludicrous. As for the first, you don't seem to be mentioning it now, so maybe you've realised you were in error. Will you admit it though? Will you hell!

• 
  
  Well I certainly interpreted TheBoyPaj's posting that Derren could influence the timing of the finish of the games as 'paranormal'.
  I now accept that you don't believe it. (I don't know what he thinks.)
  There is of course no normal way for Derren to influence the finish, so it's hard to see any value in your 'speculative hypothesis'.
  
  If it's a question of admitting error, do join in!
  You need to confess that your initial posting was riddled with memory lapses, that your assumption that the players were fooled is completely wrong and that there's no way Derren can agree a draw (or even risk resigning first.)
  
  

  A for the 2nd, you first of all need to try and grasp this fact. I was not paying attention to the TV programme at this point!. Therefore peoples allegation that I am saying that particular events took place is mind numbingly preposterous. How the flipping heck would I know what had taken place if I wasn't even watching the damn programme at that point??

  
  Well you were the one who endorsed the hypothesis without knowing what happened.
  Isn't this worryingly relevant to the situation of a psychic believer who says a reading must be true without seeing a transcript?
  
  

  If you allege that these chess players were mind numbingly incompetent enough to allow Derren to switch envelopes, then I believe you. If you allege the hypothesis advanced by TheBoyPaj and myself is incommensurate with certain obtaining facts about the world, then I believe you. No-one has ever denied this. (although, having said that, some doubt is created by your evident confusion as I point out further up!)

  
  Yes, he switched the envelope.
  No, the players are not incompetent.
  Yes, you don't know the facts (and spend your time insulting the person who does know what happened.)
  
  

  But try to get it through your skull. None of this has any relevance about the hypothesis advanced It really is utterly irrelevant whether the hypothesis is false or not. Given the background knowledge I and TheBoyPaj had, the hypothesis advanced was a perfectly valid one. Talking about Derren's ability as a chess player, how good all these chess players are etc etc , is an absolute irrelevancy.
  
  There, I've put it in bold red. Is it getting through to you yet??

  
  Ah, the use of colour to replace logic. Fascinating.
  Explain (with examples, so we can see how your mind works) how Derren can finish a game of mirror chess between two internationals so the right number of pieces are left on each side.
  Just to help you along, remember:
  
  - Derren must score 50% overall, or his trick fails
  - the right number of pieces left on both sides may well not occur at any point, so Derren may need to finish against one player (before that player loses any more pieces), and play on against the other international

 

[glee]

I've used paranormal boards with a "no personal attacks" rule. The trouble is that it's so hard to say what counts as personal. Is "Sceptics are so close-minded" a personal attack? What about "you just don't understand the evidence"?

In the end, people's hackles can be raised by anything which seems to doubt their own ability to think, and it ends up becoming a game of who insulted who first. I don't envy the mods job if that happens.

Perhaps you could look at Ian's language (all from just one post):

- you are a concrete block.
- You are too thick to understand my arguments.
- Your basic philosophical reasoning ability is zero.
- these chess players were mind numbingly incompetent

I think this is personal!

Since you are still being civil, could I ask you to explain how you think Derren successfully predicted the number of pieces on the board at the end of the games?
You said he could 'engineer it', and I assumed you meant something paranormal (or hypnotic?), since I know it can't be done by normal chess means.

 

[HenDralux]

Perhaps you could look at Ian's language (all from just one post):

- you are a concrete block.
- You are too thick to understand my arguments.
- Your basic philosophical reasoning ability is zero.
- these chess players were mind numbingly incompetent

Here is my own collection of 'Ian Insults' that I received in only one post...


- If you fail to understand it's because you're seriously intellectual deficient. But you've already comprehensively demonstrated this anyway in this thread with your explanations for the mention of the "snake"

- You sir are a concrete block in common with most skeptics (but not sceptics) on here

- I've explained this. If you and others are too mind numbingly stupid to understand this, then this is scarcely my fault.

- But I guess that you, like so many others in this thread, are too mind numbingly stupid to grasp this remarkably simple fact.

- So my advice is to ask yourself moonbeam. Or ask all the other intellectual deficient people on this thread and on this board.

- Just look at your unbelievably facile contributions to this thread. It speaks volumes matey.

- What is contained in that thick skull of yours??

- I can only conclude that knucklehead of yours must be full of sawdust

- Do you have any notion of how much loathing I have for your kind?? Unable to argue with me so resorting to insults??



I love the pure unadulterated irony of the final sentence.

Admittedly, I had seemed to have wound the guy up a little with some observations about how people allow ego to blight their discussion, and did apologise later...but after seeing him throw out some of the exact same insults under what appears to be different circumstances, I think it may have been a mistake for me to apologise.

Does anybody else have their own 'Ian Insults' collection? Can anyone beat mine?
Mine was contained in but one post remember!